Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (751770)	11/7/2013 10:54:57 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By Jorj X Mckie TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575179

RE:In a world where the climate is constantly changing and the humans of today are expected to adapt, just like their ancestors did, climatologists revert back to being the boring lab geeks that they always were, with no hope of getting laid on a saturday night. And most importantly earning very average incomes...

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (751770)	11/8/2013 7:39:51 AM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Recommended By jlallen Respond to of 1575179

It doesn't have to be nefarious to be wrong. Very well said. It applies to so many misunderstandings.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (751770)	11/8/2013 5:10:01 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575179

They have zero predictive value. If they have zero predictive value, then either the data is wrong, the assumptions are wrong or the algorithms are wrong..or maybe all of the above. The fact that laymen can see the flaws in the application of the scientific method that the climatologists have used, is a strong indication of just how blinded they are by there own bias. Your own logic is faulty. How do you know that climate change models have zero predictive value? The models that have been published have actually predicted the rise in average global temperatures, but they have UNDERestimated how fast they would rise. So they are directionally correct, but their assumptions were slightly off. Predictive value? Yes. So you are wrong there. The second statement you made about a layman's ability to see the flaws in a model being a strong indication of the scientific community's bias, is itself an strong indication of your own bias. Laymen are notorious for making very biased statements and forming very biased conclusions. Scientists are trained in hypothesis testing and using data to determine correlation and causation. When multiple different scientific disciplines arrive at the same conclusion about humans causing global warming, then you have to sit up and take notice. The UN's publication on the scientific community is evidence that there is a problem that we need to deal with. A layman's refutation of that science is simply bias, based on what political other agenda you may be pursuing. Could the UN publication be wrong? Yes. There's always a probability of that. It is science, after all.